J Street, undaunted by reality: Interview with Jeremy Ben-Ami

“It’s much easier to sit at home and lob criticism through blogs and tweets, and post that this isn’t changing the world overnight. But political change happens one step at a time…If you’re sitting on the sidelines critiquing the runners, I have no respect for you. Get in the race, show you can run it faster, show you can get to the finish line, prove you have better ideas.” -J Street Executive Director Jeremy Ben-Ami

Flush from the success of its third annual conference, J Street stands at tough crossroads. Its first two years of heady success as the receptacle for an emotional outpouring of long-suppressed liberal Jewish sentiment have run headlong into the unforgiving landscape of American-Jewish-Israel-politics.

The powerful Jewish establishment initially tried to swat down J Street like an annoyance, but as the buzz grew the establishment unleashed its anger, desperate to delegitimize J Street from the right. Over the last year or so, the fledgling lobby took a barrage of criticism over its position that the US should not oppose a UN resolution condemning settlements, only to beflogged by the left for opposing the Palestinian unilateral statehood bid last September. Critique of the harder, outspoken left now flows freely, on a lineup of issues.

The Obama Administration, which J Street originally hoped would usher in a policy paradigm shift, has stagnated dangerously on the peace process, perhaps capitulating to the vise-like grip of the established right-wing American Jewish lobby. Has J Street disappointed the left and been defeated by the Jewish-American right? Is it toeing a line too fine to make a difference? Or is it staking out a genuine ground and digging in to reach a deeper level of long-term change?

Two days after the conference ended, I spoke with founder Jeremy Ben Ami about some of these issues. The conversation here has been edited for length and clarity.

———

If Jeremy’s energy level is any indicator, the answer is clear: J Street is single-minded and undaunted. Before I even managed to ask a question, he was gushing about the conference:

Attendance was up 25 percent compared to last year (to 2,500). The enthusiasm level seemed not all diminished despite realities on the ground. On the Hill and in politics, there are people we couldn’t get a meeting with two years ago, and one year ago we could get a staff person. Now they’re meeting and agreeing to put their name on letter, when two years ago we wouldn’t have even been allowed in the door. Person by person, office by office.

DS: As Obama’s first term draws to a close, how do you view the arc of his approach to the conflict? What do you see as his most and least successful moves?

One, he came into office with the clear recognition that resolving the conflict is an essential American national security priority. Two, he recognized that you can’t deal with this in year eight of a second term, but from day one. Three, you need to bring in some fresh people and ideas to do it.

…He had the right vision. He talked about the existential necessity for Israel of achieving a two-state solution,he understood that…that’s what it means to be a friend. He made the commitment to put it into action with a full-on settlement freeze and showed a real desire not just to speak but to act.

And that’s where the good news ends. The inevitability of an Israeli “no” to the concept of a settlement freeze was not fully [thought out]… The president backed down and became very defensive about its friendship with Israel rather than being on the offense and saying that friendship means pursuing a peace deal and providing military hardware, exercises and strategic operations – not just military aid.

At the end of the first term, the vision is unfulfilled, the tactics have not worked. If he is reelected, he has to press reset if he wants to achieve the vision he laid out at the beginning.

DS: J Street’s August poll of American Jews showed57% who supported the broad outlines of a two-state solution package, but also 60% who feel favorably about Prime Minister Netanyahu, who has paid lip service, but not moved forward on the two-state solution. What’s going on among American Jews?

The biggest hurdle for the Israeli two-state camp and the American pro-Israel pro-peace camp is that people don’t believe there’s a way to get it done and a partner. But this is a far better situation to be in than the other way around. It’s a much harder task to change minds of the majority on the substance, than to mobilize people who agree with you.

The way to change the current situation is political leadership. Sadat changed public opinion overnight by speaking in the Knesset. Any one of the leaders in Ramallah, DC, Jerusalem stepping forward and leading on this issue will change the perception that [peace] is never going to happen. I have argued [this] to President Abbas …and to Israeli leaders who meet with us…to the White House, the President and will argue with whoever the American leader is after November. This is what will dissipate people’s doubts that [peace] can’t happen.

DS: J Street is committed to the two-state solution. Amos Oz said “[Israelis and Palestinian conflict resolution] is not a honeymoon, but a fair and painful divorce.” Isn’t this the old rhetoric? Is J Street beinginflexible by not opening up different options?

This isn’t just a five or ten year old idea. For 80 years, there’s been no other realistic answer to how you resolve this conflict. You have two peoples, with an unbreakable claim on one piece of land. You have three options: a. one side wipes out the other, and controls all the land; b. you both continue to live there and continue to fight ad infinitum, with blood, tears, violence and war;c. you figure out a way to draw a line, and say you’re here, we’re there. For 80 years, it’s been really hard to figure out where that line is…but that doesn’t mean that we’re naïve to keep trying.

The other two outcomes are simply not acceptable. It may be academically interesting to debate…but the entirety of human history tells us that that’s not possible.

I am one-thousand percent convinced that two-thirds of Jewish Americans fall squarely in the middle of the political map which is the space that J Street is trying to claim. There is a very, very activist group on the right, a very, very activist group on the left, they are more passionate, they are louder, they are more intensely engaged in the debate, but ultimately, the power is going to belong to the center, which is rooted in Jewish values, committed to Israel, it wants peace….it [holds] liberal views on issues like human rights, civil rights, peace and democracy. That’s why we see our movement growing, expanding year to year.

DS: Why did you ask Obama not to oppose the UN resolution against settlements, but you opposed Palestine’s unilateral statehood bid? Were you influenced by the fallout against J Street following the UN settlement issue?

They’re completely different questions. If there was a United Nations resolution tomorrow on [settlement condemnation], we’d take the same exact position, which reflects American policy for over 40 years, to oppose the settlements over the Green Line.

The application for statehood is a separate question…This Administration was in line with United States policy, not against it, that the state of Palestine should be admitted [to the UN] as a result of a peace deal. We felt that jumping ahead to membership was just a symbolic statement. If Palestine had been admitted, today nothing would be different;[it] would not change the reality of occupation, of continued encroachment of settlements on land where they have to build their state.

DS: After inviting Peter Beinart as a central speaker at the conference, did you reject his views when they went too far?

I have absolutely no problem with his book. I am thrilled by the sense of urgency that he is infusing into the discussion, I am one-hundred percent supportive of his desire to rekindle a passionate liberal Zionism that unites our values and our love of the project of building a national home for our people. Does that mean that I’m going to agree with every single tactical recommendation he makes? No. Is he going to agree with all of ours? No, but that doesn’t influence the philosophical case we are making.

We are here to solve the broken dynamics of the American political system, and broken leadership of the established American Jewish community, which stakes out positions on Israel that are not in line with the American Jewish public,and represent a small hawkish part of it….We deserve to have all voices represented in the discussion.

It’s fine for some groups to [boycott settlement products], but it’s not our mission. Many people within J Street are not going to buy products made over the Green Line, spend a dollar or see a play in Ariel, because if you support J Street’s vision and you’re grounded in our values, you’re probably not going to buy those products, or attend the plays. But we’re not going to endorse that.

DS: You are both a political lobby but also committed to pushing the boundaries of the conversation among American Jewry. Is there any tension or contradiction between these?

We have a single mission – to advance American support for a two-state solution…The broader the conversation in the Jewish community on Israel, the healthier that community will be. I’ve never staked out any claim or made any pretense that J Street is left of center or far left, other people have tried to paint us that way or marginalize us, but since day one, we’ve been passionate moderates.

DS: What are your next steps?

In 2012, the campaign is the future of “pro-Israel”: to help define“pro-Israel” in American politics so that it doesn’t mean this downward spiral of ever-more hawkish pronouncements by politicians who think they’re currying favor and support from Jewish communities. We have to make clear that the future of “pro-Israel” in this country is to support the necessary moves to achieve a two state solution…We want Obama, or the next leader, to know that the politics support them in doing that.

DS: What would you see as short-term and long-term achievements?

This is a marathon [disclosure: Jeremy is a multi-marathon runner - ds]. When we created J Street, we thought there was a possibility thatObama would sprint forward and maybe get to a two-state solution within his first two years. We wanted to clear the political space, be the “blocking back” for him. That was J Street 1.0. When that didn’t work, it became very clear that we are absolutely in a marathon and to win we’re going to have to do the hard and slow work, community by community, synagogue by synagogue, member of Congress by member of Congress…

It’s amazing to see yearly growth,we have the 5000 students involved in J Street U after just two years; there were 650 students at the conference… The progress on Capitol Hill has been enormous. There are dozens [of members] today who are engaged and openly have a relationship with us. If you can continue at that rate, every year you add 10-20 more members, that’s real progress.

DS: Are there any possible ripple effects beyond the direct impact of J Street?

If voices to our left can get more organized and bring in more activists, that’s good for the Jewish community to have this argument about what their values mean. I hope people who disagree with us on the left won’t just confine their critiques to internet but get off their seats and do something.

That’s the hard work. It’s much easier to sit at home and lob criticism through blogs andtweets, and by posting that this isn’t changing the world overnight. But political change happens one step at a time, one foot in front of the other to reach the finish line of the marathon. If you’re sitting on the sidelines critiquing the runners, I have no respect for you. Get in the race, show you can run it faster, show you can get to the finish line, prove you have better ideas, but don’t put your energy into simply critiquing the form and style of other runners.

LEAVE A COMMENT

COMMENTS

XYZ

ThursdayMarch 29, 2012

The same exhausted nonsense we have been hearing from the “peace camp” for years…if only the Israeli gov’t would make more concessions, the Palestinians would bite…if only the President of the US would be more engaged, he could impose a solution….Congress and the President don’t push Israel hard enough because of AIPAC’s supernatural powers…..American Jewry is supposedly to the Left of Israeli voters and don’t support Israel’s policies….

Never one word about the real reason there can’t be a peace agreement..BECAUSE THE ARABS WILL NOT AGREE TO PEACE WITH ISRAEL UNDER ANY CONDITIONS.
Olmert’s inane comments to the J-Street Conference…that he believe Abbas wants an agreement but he won’t say “yes” to one. Does he really think we are all that stupid? Abbas wants to string along the negotiations without reaching an agreement in order to avoid getting a bullet in the head and he also won’t say “No” because he wants to keep getting American and EU handouts. Doesn’t take a genius to figure that one out.
Read Carlos Strenger’s (a veteran peace camp member) reply to Beinart’s call for a settlement boycott: PEACE IS SIMPLY NOT POSSIBLE. Of course, Ben-Ami can’t admit it, his job is on the line so he has to keep inventing myths to make people think that J-Street is relevant somehow, when it really isn’t.
Read Strenger:http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/strenger-than-fiction/open-letter-to-peter-beinart-boycotting-the-settlements-will-not-save-the-two-state-solution-1.421302

Reply to Comment

Bill Pearlman

ThursdayMarch 29, 2012

You don’t have to be a military genius to see that Israel CAN’T have a hostile military force on the west bank ridge line. Simply cannot.

Reply to Comment

Richard Witty

ThursdayMarch 29, 2012

Good points Jeremy.

The hopelessness of the statement “peace is not possible”, is a negation of nature.

It is a confusion of the natural balancing tensions of competing needs comprising a health, with the notion that differences represent a death.

Peace is the permanent willingness to disagree. Its like breath, a return to homeostatic balance.

Peace is definitely possible. Permanent quiet is not possible with any defensive attitude.

Reply to Comment

ya3ov

ThursdayMarch 29, 2012

@Richard: Peace is possible, but there will be no peace as long as there is apartheid, and there will be no peace without the return of the refugees to 1948 Palestine. I’m sorry if that hurts your feelings, but it’s the truth.

Reply to Comment

BOOZ

ThursdayMarch 29, 2012

Ya3ov:

“as long as there is apartheid”

Just slogan-parroting.

“return of the refugees to 1948 Palestine.”

Get real.

Reply to Comment

AMIR.BK

ThursdayMarch 29, 2012

YA3OV- I love how some people keep pointing out how Israelis will ‘not get peace lest they change their ways’ like Peace was primarily an Israeli interest, or as if Israelis will be the primary benefeciaries from Peace. This is not the case, At all.
.
As the humorous proverb goes: ‘You can’t threaten a Pigeon with Wine’.

Reply to Comment

Sinjim

ThursdayMarch 29, 2012

@Amir.BK: Actually, “peace” is a primarily Israeli interest. Palestinians by and large are more interested in justice before peace. Without justice, Palestinians have no interest in peace. Whereas Israelis would just love nothing more than all Palestinian complaints to go away. So if Israelis want this peace so badly they ought to change their behavior indeed.

Reply to Comment

AMIR.BK

ThursdayMarch 29, 2012

SINJIM: That delves to region of unnecesary semantics. Who suffers more from the current situation? You are a person who believes Israelis are largely belligerent and hateful, do you really think that the vast majority of us care so much about your people’s complaints?
.
Do note I’ve used the word interest from a utalitarian perspective, not to mean ‘desire’ but rather to imply ‘benefit’.
.
Concernign ‘Israelis wanting this peace so badly’ – do not assume for a moement +972 crowd is representative of Israeli wants.

Reply to Comment

Sinjim

ThursdayMarch 29, 2012

@Amir.BK: Clearly you utilized your psychic powers to determine what I believe about Israelis, but you forgot to mention that I also believe Israelis’ favorite pasttime is kicking puppies, stealing candy from babies, and causing global warming. This lapse notwithstanding, Israel should consider weaponing these amazing powers of yours.
.
In seriousness, no, I don’t think the majority of Israelis care about Palestinian complaints nor do I believe majority sentiment is represented by the writers here.

Reply to Comment

Richard Witty

ThursdayMarch 29, 2012

Justice for oneself only is nowhere near justice.

Peace, by definition, is mutual.

Quiet and order are not the same as peace, as peace is constructed of two mutually healthy communities, whereas quiet and/or order may be achieved by suppression.

Reply to Comment

AMIR.BK

ThursdayMarch 29, 2012

SINJIM: I used my amazing powers of reading the stuff you write here on a daily basis, I was accused of being a belligerent zionist several times. Since you have psychic powers yourself when you talk to others (such as Mr. Abu Sarah) one would think you would be a little more receptive to this kind of banter.
.
your second paragraph in particular makes your first one silly.
.
Yours truly,
Amir

Reply to Comment

AYLA

ThursdayMarch 29, 2012

Thanks for the great interview, Dahlia. Before reading this, I didn’t even know that JStreet’s singular, stated mission was the TSS.

Reply to Comment

Sinjim

ThursdayMarch 29, 2012

@Amir: Well, you sort of have a point. Sometimes I’ve assumed too much bad faith on the part of people I’ve interacted with here. That I take some opinions personally here is not surprising considering the tragic situation of my people. That doesn’t change the fact that you’re completely wrong about what I believe.
.
In any case, the point that I made still stands. Palestinians talk about the conflict in terms of justice much more often and much more forcefully than they do in terms of peace. Justice is peace, for us, not the other way around.

Reply to Comment

SUBSCRIBE

OUR WEEKLY NEWSLETTER

Dahlia Scheindlin is a leading international public opinion analyst and strategic consultant based in Tel Aviv, specializing in progressive causes, political and social campaigns in over a dozen countries, including new/transitional democracies and peace/conflict research in Israel, with expertise in Eastern Europe and the Balkans. In Israel, she works for a wide range of local and international organizations dealing with Israeli-Palestinian conflict issues, peacemaking, democracy, religious identity and internal social issues in Israeli society.

Dahlia holds a PhD in political science from Tel Aviv University. Her doctoral research focused on unrecognized (de facto) states. She has been an adjunct lecturer at the Department of Politics and Government at Ben Gurion University and currently teaches adjunct at Tel Aviv University’s Political Science Department.

She is also a former columnist for the Jerusalem Report magazine and has published in the New York Times, The Guardian, Foreign Policy, Dissent Magazine, Open Democracy and the Forward, among other outlets; she is a regular media commentator and guest lecturer.

About +972 Magazine

+972 is an independent, blog-based web magazine. It was launched in August 2010, resulting from a merger of a number of popular English-language blogs dealing with life and politics in Israel and Palestine.

+972 is an independent, blog-based web magazine. It was launched in August 2010, resulting from a merger of a number of popular English-language blogs dealing with life and politics in Israel and Palestine.